Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

Seem is a valid word, it means

"give the impression of being something or having a particular quality."

From your posts you have given the impression that all the points below the line are your interpretation of the legal process.  In this case it is only my opinion not a fact. But the word seem suggests this anyway doesn't it?

the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root

[Icanhandlethetruth]

youve answered this question yourself last night....this is what you said and I agree..


If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

There seems to be some confusion about my post from last night. I have clarified it with the words in brackets.

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root

Thats what \I just posted, there is no ambiguity after post #83 it would seem.

"In this case it is only my opinion not a fact. But the word seem suggests this anyway doesn't it?"

[Mr Gray]

There seems to be some confusion about my post from last night. I have clarified it with the words in brackets.

I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted

The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.

This is the definition of Judiciary

Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.

Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system

The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.



How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.

I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.

If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.

In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.

Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)

Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.

If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.

The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.

And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.

doesnt really change anything does it...Ive answered the points you've raised.....


you have admitted....If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

which supports everything i've posted from day one on this thread...the defence didnt challenge it...so the judge automatically admitted it.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root

From previous quotes you took my reference to the UK Judiciary to mean only High court judges (see post #404).
I have never claimed that "Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible"
unless you can show where I claimed that. I'll wait.

[Mr Gray]

From previous quotes you took my reference to the UK Judiciary to mean only High court judges (see post #404).
I have never claimed that "Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible"
unless you can show where I claimed that. I'll wait.

You are making another assumption....the Judiciary includes every high court judge....so what you are claiming is inclusive of every high court judge..

you only had to wait less than two minutes...thats typing and thinking time combined

[Icanhandlethetruth]

doesnt really change anything does it...Ive answered the points you've raised.....


you have admitted....If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.

which supports everything i've posted from day one on this thread...the defence didnt challenge it...so the judge automatically admitted it.

Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.

[Mr Gray]

Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.

Quite simply...why would a judge not admit the testimony of a serving police officer unless it was challenged. IMO.....the judge had little knowledge of cadaver dog alerts and therefore automatically admitted it...accepting the policeman to be the guardian of his own testimony......

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You are making another assumption....the Judiciary includes every high court judge....so what you are claiming is inclusive of every high court judge..

you only had to wait less than two minutes...thats typing and thinking time combined

Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.

[Mr Gray]

Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.

why should I....I chose the most qualified....your claim includes ...ALL High Court Judges

[Mr Gray]

Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.

it wasnt one minute...look at the timing of the posts...it was around 12

[Mr Gray]

Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.

" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37

And this is my post #64

A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.

so tell me...does a judge look through every piece of evidence pre trial and decide if its admissible..before allowing it...or does he rely on the defence to raise any questions re the admissibility of evidence

[G-Unit]

That's the point I was making... Once again you agree with me

Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.

[carlymichelle]

Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.

some people   take  things literal    dont they??

[Mr Gray]

Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.

have a look at what this post related to....it was the fact that it was up to the defence lawyers to challenge the evidence...my post is absolutely correct....we both agree on that..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg569920#msg569920

in my posts I say that from the evidence ive seen...the alerts would be excluded...thats opinion